Re: [PATCH 1/10] Add generic helpers for arch IPI function calls

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...>
Cc: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, <peterz@...>, <linux-arch@...>, <jeremy@...>, <mingo@...>
Date: Thursday, May 1, 2008 - 10:12 pm

On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 07:02:41PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

Hey this is coming along really nicely, thanks guys.

The only problem I have with this is that if you turn IRQs off, you
probably don't expect call function functions to be processed under
you (sure that doesn't happen now, but it could if anybody actually
starts to call IPIs under irq off).

What I _really_ wanted to do is just keep the core API as a non-deadlocky
one that has its data passed into it; and then implemented the fallbacky,
deadlocky one on top of that. In places where it makes sense, callers
could then use the new API if they want to.

We could make another rule that smp_call_function might also run functions,
but IMO that is starting to turn into spaghetti ;) Clever spaghetti though,
I give you that!


--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [PATCH 1/10] Add generic helpers for arch IPI function c..., Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Wed Apr 30, 6:56 pm)
Re: [PATCH 1/10] Add generic helpers for arch IPI function c..., Nick Piggin, (Thu May 1, 10:12 pm)
Re: [PATCH 1/10] Add generic helpers for arch IPI function c..., Paul E. McKenney, (Wed Apr 30, 10:44 pm)
Re: [PATCH 2/10] x86: convert to generic helpers for IPI fun..., Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Wed Apr 30, 5:39 pm)
Re: [PATCH 2/10] x86: convert to generic helpers for IPI fun..., Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Tue Apr 29, 4:35 pm)
Re: [PATCH 2/10] x86: convert to generic helpers for IPI fun..., Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Wed Apr 30, 10:51 am)